Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1149 (DEL)

RAM KISHAN v. UOI

2006-07-13

S.L.BHAYANA, SWATANTER KUMAR

body2006
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the above appeals under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act are directed against the judgment of the reference court dated 5th August, 1999. The reference court declined to enhance the compensation payable to the claimants for acquisition of their lands and maintained the award of the Collector, however, with a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector that the solatium @ 30% would be calculated but he will not pay interest on the solatium in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Tehri Hydro Development Corpn. v. S. P. Singh and others (1997) 1 SCC 249 and Prem Nath Kapur and anr. v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. and others (1996) 2 SCC 71 . ( 2 ) THE appellants are the bhumidars of the lands measuring about 4 bighas 14 biswas forming part of khasra no. 118 and 6 bighas 6 biswas forming part of khasra no. 112/2 in the revenue estate of Village Chilla Saroda Khadar respectively. This land was acquired vide notification dated 17. 11. 1980 under Section 4 of the Act in furtherance to which the Land Acquisition Collector had made an award granting compensation @ Rs. 8,000/- per bigha. The claimants being dis-satisfied from the Award of the Collector made references under Section 18 of the Act which in turn were referred to the court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi. As already noticed, the reference court declined to enhance the compensation resulting in filing of the present appeals. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the parties commonly relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Sh. Jai Chand v. UOI (RFA 93/2000) decided on 18. 12. 2003 wherein a Division Bench of this court had held that the controversy in the present cases was covered by the judgment of the court in the case of Charanjit Singh Madan and others v. UOI (RFA 36/01) decided on 3. 4. 2003. In the case of Sh. Jai Chand v. UOI (RFA 93/2000) decided on 18. 12. 2003 wherein a Division Bench of this court had held that the controversy in the present cases was covered by the judgment of the court in the case of Charanjit Singh Madan and others v. UOI (RFA 36/01) decided on 3. 4. 2003. In the case of Sh. Jai Chand, the Division Bench had specifically noticed that the land in that case was situated in the village Chilla Saroda Bangar while in the case of Charanjit Singh Madan, the land was situated in the village Kondli but still as the land of both the villages was adjacent to each other, the compensation awarded would be the same and the court granted the same compensation to the claimants in those cases. ( 4 ) WE may also notice that the Land Acquisition Collector made an award on 30. 06. 1983 in relation to awarding of compensation for acquisition of land measuring about 56 bighas 10 biswas in village Chilla Saroda Khadar where the land was notified on 17. 11. 80 under Section 4 of the Act and in this award the Land Acquisition Collector held as under:-These awards are not helpful in assessing the fair and correct market value of the land as on the date of notification u/s 4 dated 13-11-59 in this whereas the date of notification u/s 4 in the instant case is 17-11-80. So I discard it. There is also another award No. 39/82-83 of this village having the date of notification u/s 4 dated 17-11-80. In this case, the L. A. C. has assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 8,000/- P. B. the land involved in the said award is quite similar in all circumstances as to productively and potentiality with the land. In the absence of any sales transactions or concrete evidences filed by the claimants, I will have to take help in determining the fair and correct market value of the land in question the adjecent village in Chillar Saroda Bangar, where the date of notification u/s 4 is the same and even the similarly of the said and potentiality of the land also reasonable. Some transactions took place within the land under acquisition who average come to Rs. Some transactions took place within the land under acquisition who average come to Rs. 8000/- P. B. could be the reasonable and fair amount as compensation for the land involved under the presence scheme and thus hold and award accordingly. ( 5 ) FROM the above findings of the Collector and the award which has been placed on record of this file, it is clear that the land in village Chilla Saroda Bangar is similar to that of Chilla Saroda Khadar and as such, we can easily award the same compensation as was directed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Sh. Jai Chand vide its judgment dated 18. 12. 2003. ( 6 ) IN view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the claimants in both these appeals would be entitled to the same relief as was awarded by the court in the case of Charanjit Singh Madan. Consequently both these appeals are partially allowed with a further direction that the claimants would be entitled to the same relief as was allowed to the claimants in the case of Charanjit Singh Madan and others v. UOI (RFA 36/01)decided on 3. 4. 2003 and/or Sh. Jai Chand v. UOI (RFA 93/00) decided on 18. 12. 2003. However, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, the parties are left to bear their own costs.